Anarcho-Syndicalism in 21st century

I think it is an excellent article. I wholeheartedly embrace the strategy they have laid out. In essence it seems to be promoting libertarian communism as the ultimate goal of Anarcho-Syndicalism. The stuff about different types of organisation is not necessarily new to the movement but their analysis is interesting nonetheless.

I dont really agree with what the write about the SAC, and I think its a simplification to simply say that they abandoned anarcho-syndicalism because the workers werent revolutionary enough. To claim that, is to neglect the historical circumstances, both social and economical. What they fail to mention is that the SAC, during World War II, basically was the only functioning syndicalist union in Europe, and when the effort to try and rebuild the crushed unions in continental Europe started, these groups were all tightly-knit, ideological groups, not at all a mass organisation like the SAC. That being said, I would say that its understandable that the workers were reformist rather than revolutionary in Sweden during that time, however, Im not sure how correct this actually is, Im assuming there is some truth to the claim in the pamphlet. With Europe in ruins, Sweden could advance economically like never before, with the reformist unions heading out to Europe to recruit workers, due to the lack of them in Sweden, and the building of the welfare state was in full swing, enabling the state and the capitalists to give some crumbles to the working class (you know the story).

Do note that I do consider their actions (such as recieving financial support from the state for their unemployement funds) as a step towards a more reformist and less revolutionary organisation. What Im trying to say is that you cant simply claim something (however right or wrong it may be), without giving it at least some context. That said, I consider the funds we get from the state to be of a secondary importance. Id rather that the organisation still exists, be it with the help of the state, than to perish because it cant support itself.

I consider the founds of state really big issue! That's why I consider SAC, IP, CGT, CNT-Vignoles, USI-Roma etc. reformist organisations. One of key principles of anarcho-syndicalism is selforganisation. Right? So how can you have self-organised organisation when you economically depend on the state?

I cant speak for any of the other organisations you listed, because I have a very limited knowledge about them, but as far as the SAC goes, you need to look, as I said in my previous post, at the circumstances in which it operates, and the actual organisational principles it follows. You need to keep in mind that SAAK (the unemployment fund), is not a part of the SAC as such, ie, you can be a member of SAAK while being a member of a totally different union, just as you can be a member of a different unions unemployment fund, and still be a member of the SAC. Another thing to keep in mind, is that the ways in which the different local branches operates differ, due to a variety of reasons. The one Im in, for example, mostly takes their cases to the Labour Court, while other branches (you may for example have heard about the Malmö 26, who got arrested after physically blocking a workplace). I consider the fact that many LS's has to resort to the Labour Court, but I also consider it to be a far better alternative to defend your members via the state, than to not defend them at all. Another good example of how methods differ between different areas is Registret, which Im sure youve heard of, and which I consider the best thing to have happened to the SAC in decades. Either way, those LS's that resort to Registret find themselves in a struggle against both the state and the employers. Either way, what I want to stress is that it is unfair to label an entire organisation as "reformist" due to it not living up to the puritan standards set by someone else. I wholeheartedly agree with the notion that the SAC has reformist tendencies, and these needs to be fought whereever they appear (the newly adopted principles is a good example of how the SAC is trying to rid itself of the reformist tendencies. I would not, however, consider the SAC to be reformist in and of itself.

I can answer the rest later on, I have to get back to work.

I would like to say that I appreciate this discussion. We do have really opposite opinions, but I hope that you realize that I have nothing against you and stuff. I have to write these, because people are usually upset about stuff like this - about criticizing their organisations etc.

I appreciate this discussion as well, and of course I dont think that you have anything against me, and I hope you realise the same. Although dont think that I automatically jump up to defend my organisation, I realise that theres a lot of flaws and errors that needs correcting. Im just not sure I agree with you over what exactly the errors are.

But still it's receives state funds and it has bureaucrats, centralized structure, ombudsman's etc. These things are bad, aren't they?

Bureaucrats? Where? What? How? Please explain, as I consider this accusation ludicrous, and please source it. Centralized structure? In what way does the SAC have a centralised structure? I completely disagree, each LS is basically autonomous and governs itself, through its members (the active ones at least, but thats another discussion). Ombudsman? The SAC has consequently stripped them of their powers ever since the 80's, and today, they can only be appointed (by a direct vote by the members) for two years at a time, two times. Also, at the congress in 2006, the number of ombudsmen the SAC is allowed to have was limited to three (3). Theyre now called organisers though, for future reference.

Either way, I agree, all of those things you listed are bad things, but I fail to see how they are connected to the SAC of today.

I know for Malmö group, and I also know that each SAC's LS has different structure. For example Stockholm LS (which structure I kind of liked I hated only three bureaucrats) and Malmö are different.
Still, you can't call SAC anarcho-syndicalist organisation if you use ombudsman's and lawyers. Then, tell me what's the difference between SAC and any other reformist union? Here in Croatia we have this union which is regular workers union, not inspired by any ideology, and still they operate like SAC. They use lawyers and sometimes they use direct action (strikes, occupation of workplaces etc.).
I mean, you know what's anarcho-syndicalist practice, right?

I have never called the SAC an anarcho-syndicalist organisation, and I wouldnt do that either, because frankly, they arent an anarcho-syndicalist organisation, and Im not sure I want them to be one either.

The difference between the SAC, is the organisational structure, for one thing. It is entirely different from the various reformist unions, in that we give each local branch a completely different position, almost an autonomous one. This sort of organisation does not exist in the reformist unions, at least not in Sweden. We do not call people out to strike, we expect them to take this decision themselves, it would be unthinkable for us to do so, while the reformist unions have no problem with this praxis, and use it consequently. I could go on for a while, but it would be silly, and I dont think I have to either, you are well aware of the differences.

Furthermore, just as a side note, going to court does not equate using lawyers and bureaucrats. In my LS, its the members that does everything, even go to court. They do this without expecting to get paid, with the exception of compensation for lost working-hours, which I find completely valid.

It's not about "puritan standards". There's this thing called anarcho-syndicalism.. it's this, this, this and this. If you don't fill up the form then you are not anarcho-syndicalist organisation. There's point in that "form" and you can't just pragmatically change your practice and then attack people for they "puritan standards" if they say that something is wrong.

Indeed there are things called anarcho-syndicalism. There are also things called dogmatism and sectarianism, which I believe the IWA are at part guilty of (the "no contact" decision, for one thing). What I have done, is not to "pragmatically changed my practice", but to realise that there are problems with living up to every single one of the anarcho-syndicalist textbook principles. I fully acknowledge that there are issues to be dealt with in the SAC, and we are trying to deal with them, although I am not sure I would support an entrance into the IWA at this time.

Well, I consider that SAC is not anarcho-syndicalist union and that they are heading to the reformist road. Still, I agree with you regarding new principles. I like them and I would like to see SAC in IWA once again. But I don't think that this is going to happen in next 30 years. I think that members of SAC must be educated about anarcho-syndicalism, because as I heard most of them don't know what it is.

Agreed, for the most part. I dont think the SAC is heading down a reformist path, and I think we have taken steps in the opposite direction. I cant speak for the entire SAC when it comes to knowledge of anarcho-syndicalism, but its certainly something that needs to be brought up.

But, SAC's problem is not only state founds. Bureaucracy, "old farts" who would like to see SAC looking like LO, workers without class conscious, members who have never heard for anarcho-syndicalism, IWA or someting like that, no communication between groups, etc. Also, regarding international communication I can notice authoritarian practice in SAC as some individuals just chose organisations with which will SAC cooperate without asking whole SAC. For example, SAC is in contact with IP from Poland, which is reactionary authoritarian organisation which openly collaborate with Bolsheviks and fascists (it was on their web page!).

I believe I have answered some of these points above, but if you want me to expand further, please let me know and Ill try.

When it comes to the authoritarian structure in which the SAC conducts its foreign and international communications, please give me a source. I am not very familiar with how the SAC conducts these things, and I will hold it as an option that what youre saying is true, but I wont accept it if you cant show it to me. As to who the SAC actually has contacts with, I would venture as far as guessing were only in contact with the ones we are in contact with (although I hope we wouldve been in contact with many of them even if we were actually part of the IWA), because we have no other options. The members of the IWA are not allowed to have contacts with the SAC. We are sort of limited as to our international contacts. I hope you realise that this is one of the reasons for our "foreign policy". I would also guess that its not very attractive to be in contact with the ones that actually threw the SAC out in the first place (although I think it wouldnt matter now). As to the organisational structures and partners of the IP, that may well be, but I know virtually nothing about them, except for an occasional article in Arbetaren, so I wont comment further on that.

It's not just about survive it's about functioning and principles. Altroguht, I have to admit that SAC is still mass organisation and that many of organisations from IWA are not like that. It's shame for movement.

Agreed. Its about principles as well, but its hard to have principles if you dont exist. I would be very disappointed and disillusioned if the SAC dismantled due to adhering strictly to the principles of anarcho-syndicalism. You pinpoint another of the problems between the SAC and IWA, namely what kinds of organisations the IWA actually consists of. Many (or some) of the organisations in the IWA are not mass organisations, but rather closely knit ideological comrades, if you understand me, and it is far easier to stay on a revolutionary path when youre not a mass organisation, which I think the split between the CNT and CGT shows. The continued existance of the CNT does prove that its possible though, so dont get me wrong.

I think it's a mistake to propose a highly ideologized conception of a union. There could be no "union" like that in the USA for example. If you go to the Starbucks Workers Union website, it doesn't talk about their revolutionary principles.

This is why we developed a "dual organizational" approach in the USA in the '80s. What we see as possible is the development of more militancy, greater rank and file worker control over an organization, not top-down and controlled by paid staff/officers, clear recognition that employers and workers have antagonistic interests, rejection of "partnership". But you can't get anywhere by claiming to be "anarchist." so our organization, WSA, is not a union but a political or specific organization. It advocates libertarian syndicalism as a strategy. This means we favor the development of self-managed mass organizations, anti-racist and anti-sexist, oriented to class wide solidarity, oriented to alliances with other labor and social movement organizations, controlled by the members, rejecting no strike contracts and "partnership" deals with employers. We want such a labor organization to develop support for self-managed socialism as an aim.

The Brighton document is opposed to any on-going formal mass organization. Their idea is that there is a small minority that is a hard core, and then they try to get workers to organize in assemblies and ad hoc committees in struggles, but not to have an ongoing mass organization. I don't think this is realistic. It will simply play into the hands of bureaucratic unionism. If we can't offer a plausible concept of a more grassroots, worker-controlled union, we'll have the type of hyper-bureaucratic unions that currently exist in USA.

I also don't agree with the SolFed document's attacks on SAC and CGT. CGT also uses independent assemblies in strikes where they can...as they did in the struggle of bus drivers in Barcelona in 2005-2006, which was organized by ad hoc assembly and ad hoc strike committee independent of unions. Both the CNT and CGT are "militant minority" organizations in Spain. Both are committed overtly to a libertarian revolution.

When predecessors of CGT split from CNT in 1984, they said that the workers want the assembly system but they want to do it legally, and not have to always be in conflict with the police. So in the 2005-2006 strike it was the elected comite members of CGT who helped to organize the independent assemblies. The subsidies the CGT receives (and the Coordinadora also) come from election of delegates to the negotiating committees. They get some time off for representing workers. On the other hand, paid people in CGT make only what they make on the job.

Believe me, this is very different than the kind of bureaucratic unionism that exists in the USA. There are more than 10,000 officials of unions in USA who make more than $100,000 a year.

Here, just to be able to create a union that does not have no-strike contracts, has only a few people paid by union, no one making more than the workers do, rejecting "partnership"...this would be a great advance.